Judgement Day: the 5-Game Mark.

I said at the beginning of the season Hughton had five games before he could be judged. Today marked the fifth game, so how has he done? 5 games, 4 points, 3 goals. Good enough? Quite simply, no. It was vital we began the season strongly, with the fixture list looking particularly unkind towards the end of the campaign. Our opening set of fixtures has included three home games, one against a newly-promoted side (who were reduced to 10 men early-on), and only one 'top six' side. A very average run of games within England's elite league. Three goals is a woeful return.

So, is this down to managerial mistakes? If so, where? It's very easy to sit behind a computer screen or amongst 27,000 other disappointed supporters and bemoan Hughton's tactical decisions, but on increasingly regular occasions I find myself unable to comprehend the thought process behind some of the choices made from the dugout. In the last twenty-six Premier League matches, Norwich have managed just five wins. Five. An atrocious record for any team. Answers are most certainly needed.

First, Olsson was signed first and foremost as an alternative to Garrido - a quicker option when facing teams with pace in attack - or so I presumed. Villa presented one of the most worthwhile opportunities to make use of the Swedes pace against an impressively nimble front-three, and yet a 'tactical omission' resulted in entire exclusion from the match day squad. If Olsson wasn't to be of use to Hughton in this fixture, when exactly will he be?

A major concern amongst the Norwich City faithful has been a worrying lack of goal scoring potential. Yesterday marked the first game in 27 Premier League matches that Paul Lambert's Villa managed to keep a clean sheet. At home, up against a defence that leaks goals game-by-game, and we've failed to break them down. Even when gifted a chance from the penalty spot, we've lacked conviction. Why Snodgrass insisted on taking that penalty, I do not understand. More so, why have we let him? We have our record-signing upfront, distinctly in need of a goal, and he's got the confidence to take it - you absolutely let him take it. On the other hand, we have a player who, by his standards, has had an extremely poor start to the season. Things aren't going right for Snodgrass at the minute, and so it was inevitable he would miss the spot kick. Credit to van Wolfswinkel, though, for his attitude following the penalty. No fuss, just got on with the game. A silver lining in an otherwise mediocre performance.

Serious consideration needs to be taken as to whether van Wolfswinkel needs to be dropped. Not because he's not good enough, the quality is there, but because he needs kicking in to shape. A spell on the sidelines would give Hooper a chance to shine, whilst also motivating RVW to find his form. The Dutchman is supposed to offer 'world class movement' on the attack, or so I've been assured. The only 'world class movement' on show today, however, came from Aston Villa's front-three. Agbonlahor and Weimann gave a lesson in offensive movement that revealed a worrying realisation of what we had to offer in the final third.

Then came the moment from which Hughton received a chorus of boo's that echoed around Carrow Road. The game was crying out for changes, Villa were in control, and City were struggling to threaten. Once Villa used up their second allotted substitution on the hour, Hughton went for a double change. Hooper for Elmander was probably what most of us were expecting, but Redmond? No. I've seen some attempted justifications for Hughton here, but in my opinion they hold very little weight, and it is understandable why so many fans felt it necessary to voice their confusion. On one side you have a winger on form, capable of providing a moment of magic during a seemingly uninventive display, and facing a make-shift right back in Bacuna. On the other, you have an off-form winger who is struggling with his final ball and was trying desperately to make up for a decisive penalty miss. Who do you take off? To leave the rather woeful Snograss on for ninety minutes yet remove the spark of Redmond after 60 was more than questionable. Yes, a substitution was essential. Yes, somebody has to make way. But no, the right player was not taken off.

As for the positives, well, we did set out to attack more. Of that I am in no doubt. We saw enough of the ball and retained possession well for large spells during the game - but that leaves a damning reflection on our lack of conviction. Even when we we push forward, and find ourselves in the driving seat, our creativity is remote. Our back-five did okay against a strong Villa attack, especially as Bassong was forced off through injury, and Fer and Howson answered questions on whether they can play as a centre-mid pairing. Other than that... So much for the 'positives'. If we are giving a brutally honest assessment, positives were scarce. It made for extremely worrying viewing as a City fan. 

I spent the walk home contemplating whether - following the conclusion of my 5-game restriction on managerial judgement - I had one foot in the 'Hughton out' camp, or whether I was continuing to hold on to hope that improvements will come. I conclude that lessons need to be learnt, fast, but we should stick by Hughton for now. There was a noticeable improvement in our football, a willingness to make changes is evident (regardless of what those changes may be), and these players have come to play for Hughton - stability is a factor that holds much importance in football yet is often ignored when times are bleak. Next Sunday, however, we play Stoke away. Another loss and a continued drought in front of goal would leave us on four points from six average league games, and only three goals to show for over 25 million pounds worth of talent. Such a scenario would leave it difficult for even the most faithful of Hughton supporters to make a case. For now, lets hope it doesn't come to that. Straight back to the training ground, lads.